The Level Designer's Trap

I consider the act of laying out screens and actually designing a level to be trivial at its best

For instance, in A Strange Dream, if you don't yet have the climb powerup, your surroundings are shaped such that you'll be funneled gradually towards it regardless of what direction you go.

I just wanted to point out that those two statements can be interpreted as contradictory. At least to me, because your statement about A Strange Dream suggests that it has really good level design, and I don't think it's trivial to do it just like that, giving a "natural" feel and such.
What I'm trying to say, basically...
Most level design is probably alright, where the standard tilesets don't help with making it remarkable.
If you're doing it really really cleverly though, (innovative use of the default tilesets often helps a lot too), it can very well give a worthwhile result. Even without all custom blurb.
So yeah, I think you can remedy lack of artistic skill with exceptionally good level design, or vice versa. But of course it's best if you can do both.

I consider the act placing screens in a non-confusing way that keeps you going in the right direction to not be particularily difficult; it just requires some foresight.

I have never seen a level that uses The Machine's tilesets in ways they weren't used in the level, and still makes them look good.  If you can link me to a level that uses default tilesets yet feels new, then do so.

I have never seen a level that uses The Machine's tilesets in ways they weren't used in the level, and still makes them look good.  If you can link me to a level that uses default tilesets yet feels new, then do so.

bunnrey's "Caverns" does a lot of interesting things with default tilesets; it's also an example of a level that has some screens that are very cluttered and sometimes confusing yet, IMHO, still - mostly - work very well, aesthetically.  This is by no means the only example, mind you; just a prominent one, because it's large and all made from default tilesets.

(I think it might be interesting to start a thread to discuss screen design - from an aesthetic point of view - with screenshot examples and all... Don't have time to do this now, though.)

Since I don't have screenshots of Caverns or any other default-using level handy, and not enough time to make them now, here's a few from my own tiny test-run of a level, Jumping in the Rain: yes, JitR is mindnumbingly boring and hardly an example of brilliant level design. But, I *did* try to do something aesthetically interesting with the default tilesets there, and I think I was at least half-successful, with some of the screens. (You'll notice that in most cases what I did was some repurposing of background, 'building', or 'cloud' tiles. And yes, if everyone did this all the time, it would get boring, too, I am aware of that. But then, there's still the option of finding interesting *combinations* of tilesets... *g*)

Sorry, but those just look the same to me.  I've seen tileset usage pretty much exactly like that before, in many levels, and it doesn't appeal to me now any more than it did then, but the point is that it's nothing new.  (Note: I've long forgotten the names of the levels I mention, and have also removed them from my KS installation, because, well, I didn't like them.  They'd be on the old forum, but any links to them on there would probably be broken.)

I should point out, at this point, that in most cases, not only of KS levels but in everything, that I am stubborn as a lead brick.  I doubt it would be possible to sway my opinions on these things.

Also, honestly, most combinations of two tilesets that haven't been drawn specifically to be used together will be ugly like a gazelle's butt.

Well, tastes differ. :-)

Mine's clearly influenced by a) the fact that I have only seen some 200 levels so far, so I may not have hit 'saturation point' yet, and b) I don't believe in absolute originality, and tend to like levels (including my own) that use pre-existing stuff if they use it well. Basically, if I like the general look of a tileset, I *like* the general look of the tileset, and if something appeals to me, well, it appeals to me. Familiarity doesn't change that at all. I mean, I don't go and replace all the pictures on my walls after a couple of years or so, either - when I like something, I like it.

I dunno, I just don't get bored with things I really like. Maybe that's a fundamental difference of temperament between us?

I do appreciate subtle variations, though. Plus, as I said, unexpected combinations.

(Hey, I write fanfic. That uses pre-existing stuff, too. *g* Plus, from my work I've learned that there is no such thing as absolute originality - even when you think you have an original idea, chances are someone, somewhere had it before. I learned that when I surfed several hundred jewellery designers' websites and discovered at least a dozen pieces that were pretty much like some I had designed years before, without ever knowing of these designers or their work...)

And, frankly, I've seen levels using custom tilesets that I found much more boring and/or ugly than some that used default or well-known ones. For me, *how* you use something is more important than *what* it is that you use.

But, as usual, YMMV. *g*

I think we're comparing apples and oranges to trees and cows.*

I like the way Nifflas' tilesets look - everyone here does, I'm sure - but I get tired of looking at them when I've already seen them so many times.  It's like listening to the same song fifty times in a row - it gets pretty grating after a while, unless you really like that song.
And I've seen the default tilesets used more or less the same way hundreds of times.  I'm tired of it, to the point that I don't even want to look at the tilesets anymore - I can no longer enjoy replaying The Machine.
By the same token, I've heard the default music tracks so much that I've inadvertently memorized them, and no longer want to hear them.

Perhaps it's more accurate to say that I'm getting bored with Knytt Stories itself, but I don't feel that's really true.  I was of the same opinion about this stuff when The Life Ruby was first released, and I certainly enjoyed playing it!  Were another level with a similar amount of high-quality custom content and general attention to detail were released, I'd certainly like that level as well.

I'm rambling a bit now, though.  End post.



*Or something like that.

I think we're comparing apples and oranges to trees and cows.*

I'm not sure we are... maybe apples and pears, but those *are* fairly similar. ;-)

Hm. I think, for me the degree to which I *don't* get bored of something, in the realm of aesthetics/design, is a measure of its success. Okay, let's phrase that in a less clunky and confusing way: the better - the more aesthetically accomplished - something is designed, the less likely am I to get bored of it.

Although that's misleading, too, because it makes it sound as if the tilesets ("what is designed") are the crucial element for me here, and they kind of... aren't. And being bored isn't really the issue for me, either. When I don't like the look of a level it's usually because it's not designed in an aesthetically competent way, and not because I'm bored... well, okay, if a level is just a long succession of screens with just flat ground and a few enemy critters on it, then yes, I will get bored, too. *g* Okay, now *I* am rambling...

Let me back up and approach from another direction: to me, tilesets are like... building blocks; brushes and colours; in other words: the material from which you build something. Categorically stating that any level built from a default tileset will be boring is, to me, a bit like stating that any painting that uses the colour blue will be boring because we've all seen the colour before. Or, if that is one level of abstraction too far to make the analogy work, it's like saying that any painting done in a particular style will be boring because the style is not entirely new.

Now, granted, there may be people who are so jaded that they only get moved by something entirely new and surprising and original anymore... but I don't think that that is the audience an artist should aim for (or rather, the artist should only aim for that audience if s/he feels the same way). - For me there is something (near-)universal about aesthetically successful work, and aesthetic success is not connected to novelty. You can do aesthetically successful work with the oldest, most unexciting materials. Maybe this has something to do with me being a craftsperson - we do tend to appreciate excellence of execution over originality of ideas (although I've had some fairly 'highbrow' training at a reknowned design school that did emphasise originality...)

(I think I'll bow out of this now... not because I'm angry or anything, but because I think I'm beginning to repeat myself, and I don't want to bore people here. Repeated arguments *are* boring. *g*)

... Ultimately, this may be just a fairly minor difference of taste, anyway: I don't think you're looking for total originality either: you want something that still feels like Knytt Stories, after all. You just like the 'subtle variation' I talked about in my previous post to happen in the tilesets, while I like to see it primarily in the screen design. It's not like (most) custom tilesets really add anything fundamentally new - just some new patterns, some new plants, etc.

Now, granted, there may be people who are so jaded that they only get moved by something entirely new and surprising and original anymore... but I don't think that that is the audience an artist should aim for (or rather, the artist should only aim for that audience if s/he feels the same way). - For me there is something (near-)universal about aesthetically successful work, and aesthetic success is not connected to novelty. You can do aesthetically successful work with the oldest, most unexciting materials.

I totally agree. But there is one thing I think you absolutely should not do and that is use orange grass (tileset 10,) as a meadow. It's been done so. Many. Times.

... Ultimately, this may be just a fairly minor difference of taste, anyway: I don't think you're looking for total originality either: you want something that still feels like Knytt Stories, after all. You just like the 'subtle variation' I talked about in my previous post to happen in the tilesets, while I like to see it primarily in the screen design. It's not like (most) custom tilesets really add anything fundamentally new - just some new patterns, some new plants, etc.

This is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about.

Let me back up and approach from another direction: to me, tilesets are like... building blocks; brushes and colours; in other words: the material from which you build something.

I would agree with this for most games, but the tilesets in KS are small, there are only four tile layers, and there's no parallax scrolling or anything.  Very little variation can be achieved with one, or even two, tilesets, necessitating, to me, the need to constantly make new tilesets to keep up variety.

The best counterexample I can think of is Jazz Jackrabbit 2.  Its tilesets are usually much larger than those of KS, usually far exceeding 500 tiles.  Tiles themselves are also larger (32x32 instead of 24x24).
There are eight tile layers, and all have parallax scrolling; furthermore, tilesets have their own masks, and tiles can even have a special translucency effect applied to them.  There are also ambient lighting effects.
This gives designers a great deal of flexibility in tileset usage, which can be easily shown with a few choice screenshots, all of levels using the same tileset:
A well-made level with a sufficiently well-made tileset can always feel "fresh" no matter how many times the tileset has been used before, due to how many opportunities there are to use tilesets creatively.
(The astute may note that Jazz Jackrabbit 2 tilesets are restricted to 256 colors.)

A KS tileset, on the other hand, usually just looks like it looks, and if you've seen it once or twice you've probably seen all of it.



Does this post make sense?  I really don't know!

All I have to say on this matter is: it's all personal preferences. There could be a level that many consider perfect, but some people will hate its guts. Different people like different things. By arguing, we won't solve any conflicts.

All I have to say on this matter is: it's all personal preferences. There could be a level that many consider perfect, but some people will hate its guts.

Indeed. Here is a list of kind of popular levels I dislike, just for shits and giggles.

Travel eastward
Above and below the waterfall
The jolio trilogy (or at least, the two that were made)
Remembrance
Revelation
Sohe and the Rokked
Shoot For the Moon
Spiral
Scarlet tears

Oops, was I arguing?  I didn't intend to sound like I was, because I was trying to sound like I wasn't, because I wasn't.

Sorry.

Using no-climbs and/or no-jumps to block of voids.
It incredibly annoying when you find a wall that you should be able to climb or jump around, but you can't, because the level designer could not be bothered to draw the wall properly in the first place.

I actually find using no jumps to block off voids above to often be handy, nifty, and, if done right, aesthetically pleasing. I'm not sure if this is the way you've seen them used, but I like to put a line of them at the very top of the screen.

EDIT: I've only had to do this in caves, where there are passages that won't really work, but look good on just the one screen. I always put bits of sky and stuff in outdoor screens

 Story is something people tend to avoid... It's really the most important part of any game to some people. (people like me lolol)

 This doesn't mean you should fill the game with talking and descriptive signs. But try and make your settings tell a story, deliver a mood. This engine was very competently designed to work at low resolution in a -panoramic- ratio, which forces you to think of it like a movie. You need to utilize color theory and silhouettes more than fine details to get your point across.

 What you need to think about most, is direction and flow. You want to guide the viewer across every screen with a gradual transition that leads them through some kind of a story that you imply with your visuals.

 So you got a forest? Great. Green trees? Brown trunks? Well, why are you even going through that forest? What could have possibly happened in that forest? Can it be demonstrated visually? Or even linked to later happenings in the game? Visual themes should be carefully implemented. Things without a point, or things that just "look cool" can be confusing if they don't fit in with context.

Visual themes should be carefully implemented. Things without a point, or things that just "look cool" can be confusing if they don't fit in with context.

I agree; the lack of cohesion is a major turn-off. I tend to enjoy levels that put "Stories" in Knytt Stories.

One trap some designers fall into is falsely labeling their levels, breaking rules whenever they see fit. Nifflas included the level sorting feature for a good reason, as it makes large libraries manageable - but only as long as designers cooperate. That is, they actually read and follow Nifflas' level labeling rules, and not break them just because.   

Another trend I've noticed is that custom animations tend to be under-used. I'm not sure why; maybe COs are too challenging to make, or perhaps they came short of the popular expectation as moving, death-dealing interactive objects.